Indonesian workers load rice in to a sack at a market in Jakarta, Indonesia. Photograph: Mast Irham/EPA

In 2008 developing countries, and poor people within them, were hit hard by the price spike in the international cereals market. Once again food prices are moving up, not that far short of the levels seen three years ago, so does this mean another bout of hardship? Some think so. Last Thursday, the Guardian ran the headline "World food prices enter 'danger territory' to reach record high."

Is this right? Not quite: there's a difference this time. While huge numbers of poor people will face difficulty some stand to gain from the price spike.

Why? It is not just cereals prices, nor just food prices, that are rising, but almost all agricultural prices – including those of the main tropical exports: cocoa, coffee and tea; cotton; palm oil; sugar; and rubber. Most low income countries, leaving aside the few with minerals and oil, depend heavily on these for their export earnings. Often, much of the production comes from small farmers. Higher prices mean windfall gains for them, gains that are likely to be spent on local goods and services, with strong multipliers in additional jobs and incomes for others on low incomes.

On the other hand, most of these countries are net importers of cereals and will suffer from higher prices on these items.

So where will the balance between extra costs and windfall gains fall?

Let's consider five countries: Burkina Faso; Ghana; Indonesia; Kenya; and Nicaragua; then see the likely impact through changes in the value of their trade in 10 of the most commonly traded items – maize, rice, wheat; palm oil; tea, coffee, cocoa; sugar; cotton, and rubber.

When you look at the data and it is clear that all five countries get a large boost to their export revenues – by around 20% in two cases, by 40% in another two, and by more than 100% in Burkina Faso – the latter thanks to it being so heavily dependent on cotton, the price of which has risen dramatically over the past six months.

None of this will provide much solace to those who are feeling the brunt of price increases. We should focus efforts to ease the consequences of another price spike on those we know are most prone to shocks. By identifying those countries with the highest existing levels of hunger who are also major consumers of cereals and dependent on cereal imports we can pinpoint the areas where need is likely to be greatest. Overseas Development Institute studies show these countries are clustered in West Africa, the Horn of Africa and South Central Asia.

When may prices come down from current levels? Provided that the harvests of 2011 are not hit by bad weather, then prices of cereals should come down substantially by the late summer: from experience in 2008, farmers can be expected to produce large harvests in response to higher prices.

What can governments do to support this?

Earlier this month Robert Zoellick reinforced the message that markets can still contribute to reducing hunger. His article includes three sets of complementary policies. First, helping make markets function better, through generating information on production and stocks. Second, safeguarding food aid through small reserves located closer to areas at risk and getting agreement not to international movements of humanitarian aid. Third, building safety nets to support the vulnerable and small farmers when prices rise. These all deserve support.

In the medium to long term, however, the main issues remain what they always have been: producing enough food for a growing world population, and working to reduce poverty so that all can get their share. And to do both these things while reducing emissions and saving water.

Steve Wiggins is a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute.